Thursday, 21 May 2009

Putting Dogma Before The Needs Of Children…?

Social workers were under fire last night after a report revealed they were breaking up foster families because the parents were the wrong colour.

It said official attempts to take mixed-race and black children away from white foster parents are heard 'regularly' in the family courts.

Race rules say they can only be adopted by adults of the same ethnic background. The guidance claims ethnic minority children suffer mental health difficulties if brought up by white parents.

And once again, no proof for those claims.

Critics of the rules have jumped on this report in the hopes of persuading the DCSF to think again. They’ve chosen the predictable (and trendy) example to highlight the absurdity, too:

But critics attacked the policy as misguided. Patricia Morgan, an author on adoption and the family, said: 'There is no evidence that children brought up by parents of a different race suffer mental health problems.

'If that was true President Obama would be a danger to us all.'

Mmm, yeah. Think the jury’s still out on that one, actually….

But my misgivings about the true nature of The One aside, the report shows just how sunk in dogma these social workers are:

The research on fostering and race, carried out for the Department for Children, Schools and Families, said social workers were 'confused' about why race rules were being used to decide the future of children.

It said they were guided by skin colour, and when they spoke about culture 'they were often referring only to ethnic categorisations'.

The Bristol University researchers said that of 50 ethnic minority children whose adoption cases it followed, only 13 actually found new parents due to the insistence on 'same race placements'.

Can anyone see any difference here between the policies and assumptions of the SS and the policies and assumptions of the apartheid system in South Africa?

No, me neither.

BAAF remains one of the greatest advocates of applying race rules to adoption. But the Bristol report said this results in regular attempts at the deliberate destruction of foster families in which parents and children have formed a bond.

In cases followed for the Pathways to Permanence for Black, Asian and Mixed Ethnicity Children report, the courts found in favour of the foster carers, it said.

It added that the hearings led to 'professional disagreements' and 'disarray' in relationships between local councils and foster parents.

So, not content with merely searching for that illusive ‘ethnic match’, thus leaving the child in foster care longer than necessary, they swoop on any indication that the children are then forming bonds with their foster carers?

9 comments:

Watch for the cover-up and spin job that the social work professionals do for this one.

Having put a repeat child molester in with foster carers and kept his perversion secret from the fosterers they let the young paedophile molest both young children in the sure and certain knowledge that he was 'vulnerable'; and completely ignored the obvious fact that he was a predatory sexual pervert.

Theory about illusory victimhood prevailed over moral sense and pushed 'child care professionals' into an evil and secretive practise and real children actually suffered real harm.

pushed 'child care professionals' into an evil and secretive practise and real children actually suffered real harm.It did not PUSH the "proffessionals. THEY have only one aim in mind, to keep their jobs. Therefore the more "traumatised children" so much the better for them. It secures their job, and their pension.

It is like Dole staff. They are about as interested in finding the unemployed jobs, as a turkey is in voting for christmas.

'The guidance claims ethnic minority children suffer mental health difficulties if brought up by white parents.One wonders what sort of ideological contortions social workers have to perform when considering mixed race children brought up by white birth mothers.

And how often are we told about the breakdown of traditional families within the afro-Caribean community, the fecklessness of black men, the lack of male role models for young black boys etc etc. Then we read about coup[les who can't adopt because they are too religious (normally meaning Christian) yet where there is family stability in the A-C community, religion is often the reason, so i can only assume such people are also ruled out. They are bonkers these people. I have to agree with Mr Von Spreuth, there are vested interests here; those in the race industry, all those boyz2men groups, Kidscape etc.

The irony is beautiful. If I said, "I'm off to the Paki shop to buy some fags" they'd keel-haul me but *they* simply cannot see that they are unutterably racist. It's the same with university quotas.

Odd idea. I think this is in a way what colonial era "white man's burden" stuff has bizarrely morphed into.

Less oddly. Mixed race families are the ultimate proof that our society is not really that racist which is terrible news for the race-relations industry. Social workers are of course at the very least an allied trade.

It's all part of the whole Righteous thing. They just can't stand people just getting on with stuff off their own hook. They can't stand anything happening without their direct involvement (and their taking the credit).

Half my family on my mother's side are mixed race. Nowt to do with those wankers. My Great Uncle Harry was in the RAF in India during the war and knocked-up a local lass and brought her back. They had another 9(!) kids. They were married in Calcutta Cathedral which is kinda cool. The only racial hassle she ever got (and bear in mind this was the East Durham Coalfield in the late 40s) was people patronising her a bit because they thought she didn't understand LSD (not the drug) and things like that. It would have been helpful maybe but she had been educated at an Anglican school in India and had served as a WAAF.

All those kids (and now grandkids - the family moved to Brum so they're real mixed-up now) suffered mental anguish for want of a social worker. Well, Steve - my age - is totally screwed-up. That's why he has a house and a nice car and a rather foxy girlfriend and a very successful contract cleaning business and plays in a band with his completely white British dad. Yeah, a life utterly wrecked because he couldn't come to terms with his "racial identity". Real people don't worry about such things. It takes a course in "social policy" to scoop out one's brain and replace it with manure to worry about such things.

Social work - the only answer to the problems that social workers create.

How long before they start forcibly removing mixed race babys from White Mothers that have split up with the partner (Father) of the child, to "give" to "acceptable" parents, even when NO other "indicators" are present?

Are we REALLY so far advanced from the 70s, when Saami children in Sweden, Norway and Finland, were being taken from the tribe/family and, as they did with American and Australian natives, "resettled" in more, to their thinking, "Suitable families"?

OR from Hitlers racial policy of taking Polish children of the "correct racial characteristics" and giving them to "proper German families", or to Lebensborn centers?

"Magdeline homes" where children of catholic Mothers, that were "not sufficiently catholic" were taken, to ensure, along with the Mothers, that they were brought up in the "correct manner"?

The communist system, where chidren of "dissidents" were forcibly taken away and "adopted out" to suitably politicaly correct families?

Britain needs to wake up. You are sleep walking into something that Europe thought was dead with the end of the Soviet Union.

"The irony is that all social workers attend lots race-is-a-social-construct courses."

Yeah, but they probably only go for the free bicuits and coffee... ;)

"Mixed race families are the ultimate proof that our society is not really that racist which is terrible news for the race-relations industry."

Indeed. They are also, as I saw just now on another thread, a good way to counter some of the BNP's nonsense policies. Certainly a better way that the left's current thrashing around on the subject, anyway.

"Are we REALLY so far advanced from the 70s, when Saami children in Sweden, Norway and Finland, were being taken from the tribe/family and, as they did with American and Australian natives, "resettled" in more, to their thinking, "Suitable families"?"

No, I don't think we are. I think, if given an inch, the SS would happily do this. And more besides!